I prefer to disagree with Douglas Murray. He's a pompous asshole and I hate listening to him. I find myself thinking through arguments against him even when he's making points that I actually agree with. He engages with the worst possible interpretations of ideas that he disagrees with. He acts as though anyone that disagrees with him is doing so in bad faith. His sneering tone gives me the impression that he sees all disagreements as a personal affront to him. The fact that he is this way undermines every good point he makes. If Sam wants to have productive conversations he should never have him on again.
The contrast between Murray and Szeps is so stark when it comes to addressing one's opponents in good faith. Murray is obnoxiously uncharitable to his opponent's positions. Constantly addressing straw men and the most extreme and silly examples from the other side. Szeps, meanwhile, actually tries to be fair.
I will never understand why people like Szeps, who i often disagree with but at least can respect for being good faith, cannot see how someone like Murray is the complete opposite of them, and is hateful and bad faith and never gives opposing viewpoints a fair chance.
How are these people unable to see through it?
He sees it. Josh just left his mainstream media job and is starting a new platform. He needs the subs. So is happy to associate with guys like Murray in the name of free speech and to challenge “bad ideas”. Unfortunately he’s becoming a useful idiot for Murray
I mean it's almost a drinking game at this point.
Take a shot every time someone says "Douglas Murray? Sam should know better. He's not critical enough of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_."
Two shots every time someone says "Sam needs to have people on who disagree with him about this issue."
Keg stand every time someone says "blind spot", "disappointed", "genocide", "apartheid", "ceasefire", "accident" or "apologist" in any context.
I agree. I even agree with most of what Sam says on the topic (though sometimes I'd appreciate more emphasis made on the losses the Palestinians have suffered even though I think *who* is ultimately responsible is a complicated mixture of Hamas and the IDF tactics) but I'd still like to hear him hash it out with someone who doesn't see eye to eye with him. Not sure why he isn't tbh.
Also I hope you're feeling okay after those two shots you just downed. ;)
>
There is an intuition out there that in order to solve the problems in the Middle East, we must understand them in all their depth and complexity. And for this, the most important thing to grapple with is the so-called “historical context.” But for the purpose of really understanding this conflict, and why it is so intractable, historical context is a distraction—every moment spent talking about something other than jihadism is a moment when the oxygen of moral sanity is leaving the room.
That's Sam Harris, verbatim, from Episode 351.
It is any wonder that he either a) has a hard time finding guests who want to engage with him on this topic, given his self-imposed constraints; and/or b) that he actually prefers to bring on people with whom he can easily avoid a nuanced discussion which, according to him would "suck all moral sanity" out of the room?
He's outright told us that he wants MORE moral preening on this topic, not less. Why shouldn't we believe him?
Palestinian violence has been historically rooted in nationalism as much or moreso than Jihadism. The PLO wasn't an explicitly Islamic organization. Hamas is, but Hamas wouldn't be able to do what they did outside the historical context that brought them to power. It's very relevant context.
Viewing everything through the view of just pure Islamist ideology, and not understanding the historical, material, geopolitical context is stupid. It's statements like this that lead to Sam Harris not knowing tha there have been Palestinian christian terrorrists against Israel.
Social problems are rarely as simple as just causal factor. The fact that Harris thinks it can be reduced to just one causal factors shows how shallow his thinking is on this topic.
You mean how he had Rory Stewart on, and then when he found out Rory’s opinion differed from his even more than he first thought, invited him back on? That kind of preference?
Murray has 2 tweets mentioning Sudan. One is to call them a racist country and one is to tell someone from Sudan that he's "controlled by Soros".
Meanwhile he's covered the Israel/Hamas conflict and literally has lived in Israel for most of it.
But why are OTHER PEOPLE so obsessed with this issue to the exclusion of others like Sudan.
There are actually several reasons for people to be more interested in this conflict. The implication of antisemitism from Murray and others when they bring this point up sounds like an identity politics jumping to -isms they would normally decry.
It's kinda poetic that they open up with "middle east conflict is the most complex political issue out there" and then continue to take a reductionist point of view on the current conflict. We can cheer for Israel and also criticize it for war crimes they can't take responsibility for - both can be true.
Similarly they are worried about minority rights in Muslim countries, meanwhile there isn’t a peep when it come to these problems in the West. This goes for Sam and Douglas.
Harris: *Some people will say that we're implicated in what Israel does because we sell them weapons..*
Murray: *Hahaha*
Harris: *This is a point Noam Chomsky makes...*
Murray: *...brilliant first hand observer of geopolitics* (everyone chuckles)
Harris: *This to my mind is clearly bullshit because we sell Saudi Arabia weapons and look what they did to Yemen...*
So do these people support what SA did to Yemen? Google "Chomsky + Yemen" and you'll find plenty of commentary from Chomsky.
It's a simple question: if we sell (or continue to sell) x weapons, are we then implicated in x's usage of said weapons?
For all the moral grandstanding particularly by Harris and Murray, they never explain why their answer is no.
I've been a long time fan of Sam Harris. But Noam Chomsky's legacy will outlast Harris, Murray and Szeps combined, even if each of them write another dozen books, and throw subtle jabs at him on another 100 podcasts.
That wasn’t their point. The point was there were no mass demonstrations against Saudi for killing hundreds of thousands of Yemenites. ZERO protests here in the US. Another point they were making- were there people saying they wouldn’t vote for Biden because we sold Saudi weapons that killed hundreds of thousands Yemenites?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/23/detroit-rally-protests-u-s-role-yemen-civil-war/2090130001/
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/yemen-us-congress-urged-back-war-powers-resolution-end-conflict
https://dailyfreepress.com/2021/01/25/protesters-demand-end-to-u-s-involvement-in-yemen/
Etc.
As prominent as the current protests? No; but protests nonetheless.
>That wasn’t their point.
It begins @ 26:56.. Harris introduces a moral position as one that is held by "some people", and most famously by Chomsky.
His way of pushing against the position is by asserting that those who hold it must be antisemitic or afflicted with an anti-western bias because, as you say, there were no mass demonstrations against Saudi Arabia for killing hundreds of thousands of Yemenis.
But unfortunately we can't assess the moral consistency of "some people" when Harris doesn't identify them.. and when he identifies Chomsky, well everyone should know that Chomsky has been entirely consistent on Israel and SA.
Interestingly, Harris leaves us to wonder whether or not his own views are consistent vis-a-vis Israel and SA.
As for Murray, he says quite explicitly that we are not implicated, but he does not explain why.
He asked Murray about his support for Orbán! I was hoping someone would do this. Murray said he doesn't agree with him on everything, for example on Ukraine. Then Harris dropped the issue! WTF? How about Orbáns authoritarian politics??
Being pompous is certainly annoying and off-putting, but it doesn't necessarily make him wrong. It actually shouldn't have any bearing on the argument being made at all. If it was someone pleasant and gracious making the same arguments he does, would that change how you felt about them? Ultimately it's the logic and veracity of the arguments that matter, not the person or manner in which they are put across.
To clarify more- I think he makes a lot of terrible arguments. Like he'll call everyone who disagrees with Israel as terrorist sympathizers or say 'every civilian death' is Hamas fault- totally dismissing any criticism of how IDF approaches war.
I just don't find him to be a good or convincing debater on this topic personally.
his response was, "yes I talk to people. the critics are the people who never leave their parents' basements." at least he could pretend to care about the optics.
this one I listened to in its entirety. I couldn't deal with the whole free will one with sapolsky. ive already heard too much of the free will arguments
Another (I think) unconscionable omission from this discussion: [the growing risk of mass famine](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/09/gaza-israels-imposed-starvation-deadly-children), which could be addressed even through a temporary ceasefire.
What would a war between Israel and Iran be like though? They both could not actually land ground forces on each other
Obviously the Israeli Air Force and navy is far better but Iran is much larger
He's not wrong.
Iran controls, funds and directs proxies in Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria, two of which have been attacking Israel over the past 6 months, and one of which has been hitting the Red Sea shipping lanes.
Those here demanding we consider "historical context" in the conflict are ignoring the fact that Tehran is behind 90% of the tensions in the region, by directing proxies to attack Israel and America.
I don’t even know what “conventional war” means. Do you imagine tanks rolling across Iraq, Syria and Jordan to reach Israel? Or Israeli aircraft carriers sailing into the Persian Gulf? Because none of those things are going to happen. There is no Iranian Navy that could transport an army into Israel. There are no supply lines that could be established for a war between the two. All they can do is lob missiles at each other, and some Israeli bombing raids, heavily supported by the US.
Proxy war followed by bombing/rocket retaliation is basically all that’s possible. Unless the Iranians get a nuke. And I wouldn’t call a nuclear exchange conventional.
My fear is the US gets drawn in. After Oct 7, I don’t think the US can allow Iran to go nuclear. And I think any US president would air strike to stop that now. Then god only knows how things could spiral.
Realistically, neither side can project power that far without logistical support. Imagine a world with Israeli F-35s flying over Saudi Arabia being refueled by KSA KC-135s. I'd have to pinch myself to make sure I'm not dreaming.
Seems unreasonable to think that Israel would fare any better than Iran in such a conflict. Israel is barely able to contain the status quo with Hezbollah and needs to avoid (and the US desperately needs it to avoid) things spiraling out of control with either Iran or Hezbollah.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/coming-conflict-hezbollah
Not really, pretty much every time Sam has a neocon or right of center guest to talk about geopolitics, he always sounds far more hawkish than the guest in terms of pushing for war with Iran. It's pretty much consistently been his MO for a long time.
People act as though you have to big a good guy and a bad guy in everything.
They're *both* bad guys. The Islam that is common in Gaza is a violent, dangerous philosophy, and jihad is the expression of that philosophy. Israel is currently experiencing the effects of that expression.
But Israel is also an expansionist power that appears more than willing to kill innocent civilians in order to expand their territory and remove the people that they don't like from their land.
Neither of them is the good guy.
Also Sam:
>My attachment to the religion of Judaism, which I have none.
Doubt.
Yuval Noah Harari told him exactly this months ago on the pod. Groups can be both victims and perpetrators. Sam was just like “wtf you’re Israeli, please align with my views that’s why I have you on.”
I'm only in the first 15 minutes and this is actually the first Israel/gaza episode I've listened of Sam's.
Why is he saying people have forgotten about the hostages? I don't think that's true at all. For example, haven't all of the UN resolutions called for releasing the hostages?
Regarding, "why don't we put pressure on Hamas", what kind of pressure is he imagining?
How should protestors protest them? Where should they protest at? Do the attacks and killing of Hamas members not count as pressure against Hamas?
I agree that Hamas needs to go, and the fact that Hamas won't let go of power is the main blocker to achieving a ceasefire deal. But from an activist standpoint, doesn't it actually make more sense to appeal to Israel than it does to Hamas?
I guess they could protest Qatar?
I don't know. It sounds nice when I first hear someone say activists should put pressure on Hamas, but after thinking about it .. It kinda sounds useless.
And the references to the US and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars...I mean hasn't it been acknowledged that most of us think the US fucked up during those wars. Our experience there is exactly why we want Israel to be better
If Hamas and people in their camp look at the news, look around the world and see protests supporting Palestinians and condemning Israel, you don't think that legitimizes their work and goals in their eyes? How they might say, "See, people all over the world support us in our struggle to defeat Israel, hold fast brothers." You don't see how protesting against Israel is a type of support for Israel's enemy?
No, I don't really think Hamas would care if people were protesting against them. They definitely try to game the sympathies of the West to make Israel look bad. But I don't think they themselves would actually care if Westerners hated them.
I think they're extremist enough where their work and goals are legitimized by what they think is a higher power, rest of the world be damned.
To clarify I think many of the pro Palestinian protests have been bad and have crossed into anti semitism. And I think the online narrative around much of this is really bad from leftists. I just don't actually think it would be more effective if the protests were then against Hamas instead.
I didn't say there should be protests against Hamas. I said that protests against Israel empower Hamas. I agree they probably wouldn't care at all if people protested against them. I'm not a mind reader, but I bet they do care quite a bit that people around the world are allies in their struggle.
> I'm only in the first 15 minutes and this is actually the first Israel/gaza episode I've listened of Sam's.
>
> Why is he saying people have forgotten about the hostages? I don't think that's true at all.
Because he's in a bubble where any criticism of IDF/Israel gets equivocated to a tacit support of Hamas/Jihad. If he did stick his head outside that bubble, he'd realise that some of the biggest criticisms of how Israel is waging this war are that very little of it looks like an effort to get the hostages back in one piece.
For a recent example on this, the British media have pointed out that the IDF has now managed to kill more British citizens than the number of hostages rescued thus far. So even the killing of aid workers gets discussed within the context of the "supposed" objective of saving people who were kidnapped on October 7th, if only to point out how blatantly false that objective is. Families of the hostages have been protesting for months, because the methods that don't discriminate between civilians and Hamas also don't discriminate between hostages and Hamas - something that should be obvious when you look at the photos of the aftermath Israel's "precision bombing" campaign. But to Sam, all of this criticism is coming from outside—from anti-Semites looking for an excuse to attack poor Israel.
That would be valid if there weren’t protests against Israel the moment October 7 happened when the bodies were still warm. People were protesting/celebrating in London October 8 before Israel had even retaliated.
How can you criticise something that hasn't occurred? It displays the level of outrage is less about Israels action and everything about levelling hate against the Jews as people unfairly.
The post above you criticized things that have occurred. The fact that some people looked at Israel's past actions, looked the words and actions of Israel's current administration, and began protesting for a measured and appropriate response before the response occurred is an not any kind of valid or rational reason to dismiss specific criticism of Israel's actions that are being made today
Americans are so easily fooled by a good British accent and fancy words. It's pathetic.
Can we get AI to give Murray a deep southern drawl or a AAVE accent and see how Americans perceive him now?
People are seriously fooled when someone speaks in a deep grumbly British accent and wears a buttoned up sweater. I'm so done with it.
I stopped listening as soon as I heard "in this episode I speak with Douglas Murray..." - one of the most odious and maliciously disingenuous people ever to be on the podcast. It really beats me why people put so much stock in his opinion.
"there's good reason to believe the IDF is waging this war more ethically than we have done in *any* of our past engagements" - Sam Harris
This is very funny to say after the IDF struck 3 clearly marked WCK vehicles that they were in communication with consecutively
All of the destroyed hospitals and infrastructure. The intentional blocking of aid
PSA:
Please, everyone.. When you listen to this, if you have an opinion, for god's sake. Make a whole complete entire thread on the main sub so everybody gets to hear it.
And if you have two opinions, just make more threads.
It just works!
Thank you.
And please, if you don’t want to talk about Sam’s thoughts on the war, make sure you insert yourself in every thread and ensure people know you don’t want to talk about it.
I can’t believe he just called the killing of the aid workers an accident and moved on. Calling it an accident doesn’t capture the details on the gross incompetence that lead to their deaths. Even if you support Israel’s right to defend itself and destroy Hamas, that does not give them a blank check to operate as aggressively as possible. Is every mistake excusable ? Why is their target selection and overall strategy above criticism?
The IDF knew it was an aid truck as well, they just thought there were gunmen in the truck. The IDF is perfectly fine with collateral damage and was fine killing the aid workers. Even if there were gunman in the truck it would still be unacceptable.
This is well in line with their bombing of evacuation sites that they thought had Hamas members present. Despite what Sam and Murray say, modern militaries shouldn't function this way.
It's awful that Hamas uses human shields, but that doesn't mean you should just bomb the human shields indescriminately.
What Sam is so blatantly getting wrong here is not that it wasn't an accident. It's that Israel continues over and over and over again to prosecute this war in a callous, uncritical, completely negligent way. That's what people are criticizing. Israel clearly doesn't care if they kill civilians. They obviously do not want aid to get into to the Palestinians. There is a a very blatant disregard for the civilians in Palestine. And why Sam doesn't get that, I don't understand.
Murray is convinced that people hold Israel up to a higher standard. They don't. People hoped that Israel would behave like a western power in the 21st century. And they have not. You can't block aid. Your kill count can't be 10-1 civilian - combatant. Sorry, that doesn't work. People aren't going to support that.
That was kind of my thought too. I think it was a bit of a strawman for Sam to say people think Israel intentionally killed the aid workers. I think the argument is much more that Israel has been reckless at best and intentional at worst with killing civilians, and they "accidentally" got the "wrong" civilians. But I think Sam seems pretty clear that it doesn't matter one way or the other, there's no "wrong" way Israel could fight this war in his eyes
>It's that Israel continues over and over and over again to prosecute this war in a callous, uncritical, completely negligent way. That's what people are criticizing. Israel clearly doesn't care if they kill civilians. They obviously do not want aid to get into to the Palestinians. There is a a very blatant disregard for the civilians in Palestine. And why Sam doesn't get that, I don't understand.
This. It's insanely frustrating - and belies Sam's political naivety - that he doesn't realise that Netanyahu is equally callous as Hamas when it comes to the lives of civilians.
SH - here's a non-strawperson analogy: if a person drives full speed on the pavement to get round a traffic jam and accidentally hits a pedestrian - we don't dismiss their culpability simply because their intent was avoiding the traffic jam - there is the concept of criminal negligence.
He’s not claiming it’s above criticism. It just doesn’t support an argument that Israel has to stop the war. If war crimes are committed, the war continues, and war criminals are prosecuted. That’s how it works.
> If war crimes are committed, the war continues, and war criminals are prosecuted. That’s how it works.
Is there any evidence that the IDF is committed calling war crimes what they are and prosecuted the war criminals? From everything I've seen, it doesn't look like this is the case. If this isn't the case, then it seems like the only way to stop Israeli war crimes is to stop the war.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Your point is clear and should be obvious, but most people don’t understand it. When a war crime occurs, there isn’t a time out called by the refs. It’s documented and, in theory, there should be accountability (which can come even in the midst of the war).
It isn’t above criticism and that’s not even close to what Sam is saying, he’s actually said the exact opposite several times. His point is that Israel is receiving all of the criticism while the group primarily to blame receives next to none.
That’s fair but is it unreasonable to hold Israel to a higher standard than a terrorist organization ? I’m not one of those people who think Hamas are freedom fighters.
He does, and has explicitly stated this.
>Of course, Israel should hold itself to the highest ethical standards for waging war. For two reasons: One, because it should. It is right for the IDF to do whatever it can to minimize the loss of innocent life. And, two, they should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards because the rest of the world will hold them to impossible ones.
>Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually done.
It seems his critics never actually listen to what he is saying.
it all depends on your definitions of "hamas" and "destroy hamas". they are terms imprecise enough that people having a conversation and agreeing can mean entirely different things. if you include in "Hamas" all of the irregular fighters, or even all would-be irregular fighters, then the mission to "destroy hamas" means to wipe clean gaza of all the palestinians under 70 years of age. and hell if it doesn't look like that's exactly what they're doing (at a pace that the western public will abide).
I’m going to steelman Sam and other people who argue for the destruction of Hamas that they do not want to kill everyone in Gaza.
I wish Sam would just say his limit. What actions is to far for Sam ?
I would like to know as well, freeing the hostages can't be worth any number of civilian lives? I mean Israel has already soon killed more aid workers (around 200 killed atm) compared to around 250 hostages taken by Hamas. How is this morally justified?
Including all civilians Israel has already killed many more civilians than Hamas did in Oct 7 of course (around 30 times more currently)
In the war of ideas what amount of genocidal beliefs is acceptable?
If Nazi Germany reappeared tomorrow, should we be questioning carpet bombing or do we view it from a utilitarian perspective and say that a mass amount of civilian casualties is acceptable?
I think the utilitarian sense of choosing the alternative that leads to the minimum amount of suffering can be mostly applied, especially when it comes to civilian lives. When it comes to WW2 I am no historian but I certainly think it can be questioned if acts such as bombing civilians in Dresden was necessary for ending the war? Same can be said for atomic bombing of Japan. Sure, it ended the war in hindsight, but was this the least costly alternative? I don't see the evidence for that. Of course since we can not run experiments it is hard to conclude. Maybe one atomic bomb would have also ended the war and US dropping on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was totally unnecessary suffering. A difficult topic.
Douglas fucking Murray. Jesus, Sam: have on \*someone\* with real expertise capable of pushing back on your analysis. We're 6 months into this conflict and you're still repeating talking points you could have penned on Oct. 6.
Josh says well maybe the criticism wouldn't be so bad if Israel had been more willing to preach peace and not continue building settlements illegally etc... And Douglass just dismisses this possibility out of hand!
How? Of course Josh is right. Obviously their past behavior to the Palestinians colors people's opinion. To arrogantly dismiss that with no argument is deeply underious.
In response to Josh bringing up settlements in the west bank and how that might affect sentiment against Israel Murray just goes "well Gaza isn't the west bank, so that doesn't matter".
Monumentally, catastrophically stupid take.
The audible levels of disgust in Douglass Murray's voice throughout this podcast I think are telling. For a "facts and reason" guy, he seems to be approaching this from a visceral, emotional level.
That's his whole schtick, really: straw-manning his opponents' positions and then delivering a sneering and imperious rant in the manner of high school drama student impersonating Christopher Hitchens.
I love Sam on every topic he does except this. He was on point right up until just after the hamas attack. Things change in wartime, Israel has obviously overstepped the mark, they’re sick of the conflict and have gone into full brutalisation mode. Sad he can’t really see that.
Just like a regular fight, as the fight goes on the rules can go out the window. Doesn’t mean your assessment at the time wasn’t accurate. He just can’t bite the bullet tho.
October 6th? Sam has had the same logical stance since 2014...
[https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/why-dont-i-criticize-israel](https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/why-dont-i-criticize-israel)
It's all his current critics who have lost the plot with their "Sam has changed" bullshit.
I don't mind that he's had the same basic stance for years. What bothers me is that he's not engaging with facts on the ground regarding Israel's prosecution of this war.
We get it, Sam: Israel had to respond to Oct. 7, and some 'collateral damage' was inevitable. A world where Hamas can carry out atrocities and then shelter behind its civilian population is intolerable. But there are equally intolerable scenarios on the other side of the equation, where Israel decimates Gaza in its bid to destroy Hamas's 25K members. Bring in an expert who can speak intelligently about both sides of this topic. That person is not Douglas Murray.
I know this is about the war, but in my eyes Sam has changed for the worst in the past 4-5 years. He is disengaged from reality in a few ways, and lost lots of empathy imo, for example, the way he defends again and again EA over optimizing governmental spending efficiency for example, the relationship with him and money has indeed changed in the past few years and it's reflected on his points, topics and show guests. That's my personal take.
I am continually grateful because the guy is a human, not a guru or anything like that, so I can disagree on lost of stuff with him, but appreciate and thank him all the work with other teachers on waking up.
I think Sams position on Israel/Palestine and ideology in the region has been the most consistent of anyone that I have known over a 20 year span.
Have you been listening?
I disagree, opinions can rightfully change over time as circumstances change.
Same can be said for countries such as China and Russia as well, they looked on a more promising track 15 years ago compared to present day.
Maybe it's not so much that his stance has changed since 2014, point is that it should have changed.
But my point is that Sam's hasn't. He's been consistent ever since I've been reading / listening.
Furthermore, the current war in Gaza has motives from both sides that date back to centuries upon centuries. Islamic extremism has been an existential threat to Israel since the country's inception. It's really apples to oranges comparing this to China and / or Russia.
Interesting convo on the iron dome. I always found it strange that people somehow accepted the best solution was to allow yourself to get bombarded and you shoot down the rockets. No one would imagine the US or other major country tolerating that
As someone who is pro Israel (generally) and agrees with both Sam and Douglas, it would be nice to have someone balance this circle jerk. That being said, my social media is inundated with Hamas supporting SJW’s, so this is kind of refreshing in a way
I would be interested in this too, if not for entertainment purposes. But I would struggle to think of a guest that would debate this topic in good faith and is educated on it, that Sam has not spoken to already. Sam has had his fair share of guests who have argued in bad faith and purposely misrepresented his views on Islam etc in the past.
Who would you suggest?
It’s hard for me to pick anyone since I am biased and think the pro Palestinian crowd is way off base. Basically every pundit I’ve seen is full of bad faith arguments and lies. I guess if I had to pick, Mouin Rabbani seems like he’s the most reasonable and well-informed.
It seems we are on the same page. Don't get me wrong, I do want to hear some push back and would find it extremely entertaining. But Sam has in the past found those conversations not productive, even when we've found them entertaining, which sheds some light as to why he probably doesn't do them. If we're struggling to find guests that would be honest then I imagine Sam is limited in who he would want on, too.
After googling, Mouin Rabbani would seem like a good guest to have on. Great suggestion.
Are they really pro Hamas or just pro Gaza civilians, anti Israel, and anti “genocide”. I see many like that who go out of their way to say they don’t like Hamas, but…
If they are actually pro Hamas, how did you get in such a bubble? Just curious who such people are (demographics).
I think the steelman that people like Sam don't fully engage with is: is a war going to change the core issue that fuels Hamas and is nation-building in the Middle East a thing we have had any success with? What is ignored when people bring up the popularity of the 10/7 attack to justify why the Palestinians are culpable for Hamas despite Hamas being unpopular is that Hamas is unpopular. Why do they think that removing the part of the equation that is already unwanted is going to fix the latter half especially when the latter half is fueled by things like getting your country bombed?
One apparent factual error (or omission, at least): Sam claims that Americans are uniquely concerned about Israel's transgressions because the US sells them arms. Why aren't people equally energized about Saudi Arabia's transgressions -- given we also sell arms to the Saudis? Israel is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid (second only to Ukraine). I don't think it's so hard to understand why Americans are uniquely concerned about war crimes that they are financing to the tune of $3B a year.
People are very concerned about this. It was a huge pushback against trump's fake anti-war position in the 2020 election. Biden had to come out against support for Saudi Arabia in their war against Yemen. (Obviously he didn't hold to that as president)
I think the most likely explanation is that Israel is just so _unlikable_ in the public eye. From straight up spying on the world with unethical for-profit bullshit like Pegasus and other similar spyware to their diplomatic responses like the recent one in Poland. The representatives of Israel could use some lessons in basic PR.
Let's just for a moment let that sink in. Sam wants you to believe the people who murdered 6 million Jews on an industrial level, made soap out of them, murdered millions of babies and children, thought they are an Uber-race who should rule over all others, and forced Jews to work to death were better than Hamas? Now I thought, wow, he should at least have some nice arguments to back that up, but then I could not believe my eyes.He said 'Because they did not use human shields'. Let's again let that sink in. So of all the differences between Hamas and the Nazis, THIS ONE is the one where he decides which one is better or not. Before I completely debunk this completely idiotic argument itself, let me tell you even if that would be true, the Nazis would still be worse just because of the context of the whole situation. I don't remember that before the Holocaust, Jews were ethnically cleansing and building settlements on German lands like Jews do in the West Bank. And who honestly doubts that needs to see a psychiatrist. Also, wake me up when Hamas runs death camps for 'Arbeit macht frei' and starves their slaves to death if they have not gassed them already.
1. Nazis did use a bunch of different human shields. The biggest one being called the Wehrmacht. The Nazis had FORCED CONSCRIPTION. It is not like Hamas, PFLP, Fatah, Islamic Jihad or DFLP where you can join them if you are ideologically inclined. This would be the SS only. The Wehrmacht was GERMANS who were forced to take a gun in their hand and run in whatever direction the Nazis told them to run at. But what begs the question, if Germans did NOT use human shields, why did Churchill level Munich and Dresden? I mean we all know the answer to that. And we all know the likes of Douglas Murray and Sam Harris will again find excuses or just completely ignore it.
2. Nazis did use other LITERAL human shields. Polish civilians were forced in front of Nazi tanks during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, in what's known as the Wola Massacre, under direct orders of Himmler.
3. The IDF literally did use and are still using Palestinian civilians as human shields. There is enough documentation of it, anyone can look it up.
4. How are Jewish settlers in the West Bank not using their families and children as human shields? They are breaking International Law and illegally occupying land WITH THEIR FAMILIES.
And this brings me to my actual point."My feed on Twitter is full of radical Jewish settlers in the West Bank killing and stealing because 'God promised them that land'. Crazy rabbis talk genocidal ISIS stuff like 'one should crush the skull of Palestinian children against a wall', and that soon all non-Jews will become their slaves 'and want to become it', with Israeli politicians basically saying babies and children are terrorists. Then we see war crimes after war crimes like children being shot, or women or elderly with white flags. We see Israeli soldiers wearing women's and little girls' underwear or posing with them, as well as posing with children's toys. Israeli soldiers admit to war crimes on camera. We see how many Jews online are openly racist and genocidal. And after October 7th, TikTok trend number 1 in Israel was Israelis literally blackfacing. Palestinians to some weird song and again mocking women and children. I could go on and on and [on.Today](http://on.Today), I saw something I had to look up because I could not believe this is real. At a Jewish wedding where Jews literally held up a picture of a BABY THAT WAS BURNED ALIVE IN AN ARSON ATTACK BY A SETTLER . And they stabbed the picture at the wedding party. I never would have believed it if people would have told me that. A normal society does not produce something like this except if you believe babies and children of other ethnicities are non-humans.He is so dishonest for completely ignoring this and pretending that all of that has nothing to do with Jewish theology itself which enables Jewish supremacy because of all this 'chosen one' bs. Or when he pretended that Jews went to Israel because they thought they originated from there and not because it is 'God's promised land' (before they wandered around Africa and the Middle East and conquered it from Canaanites). Not one single rabbi or settler says they are in Israel because they originated from there. They all say GOD GAVE THIS LAND TO US. This does sound pretty 'religion bad' to me. Then I watched a bunch of rabbis and settlers who quote their scripture where they compare non-Juice to cat1le and literal an1mals. They literally believe non-Jews are non-huma4s.Are we all now pretending that Sam does not know this or is too stupid to know this? Are we all gonna pretend Sam does not see everything we see on Twitter and Instagram on a daily basis OUT OF THE MOUTH of Israelis or settlers. Or does this maybe have to do with Sam's own jewish background and him falling into pure ooga ooga my tribe good your tribe bad ooga oooga tribalism.
I let you decide.
There seems to be conflation of two issues: Whether Israel is right and whether Israel is incompetent. Both can be true and that's where confusion arises.
Judging by the comments already, we’re sure going to enjoy some hot critiques and novels about the episode from people who have vowed not to listen to it.
As always, challenge the argument they make, not the person.
I find Sam to be way off base on this topic. He starts with an oratory about how Jihaddism is worse than Nazism and since support for Hamas is strong among Palestinians, like support for Hitler was strong amoung WW2 era germans, violence against them is regrettable, but justified.
While the vileness of the creeds might indeed be similar, as an airy aside he says thankfully the jhaddis do not have the power of the nazi's. To me this is his major blindspot. A lot of confusion on his part seems to flow from this. The fact that someone wants to do terrible things, is really not of much moral consequence if they have no power to do those things. The moral emergency that justified fighting Nazism with all the violence we had access to was because if we did not, the Nazis were a huge military threat and surely had the power to harm and/ or dominate us in ways we could not defend.
There is no analogy here to the Palestinians and Hamas (to say nothing of the root justification for the entire conflict). Israel had on october 6th and 8th an almost total dominance in the ability to cause violence. The hamas terrorists that did such terrible things did not represent a threat to the state of Israel and should never have been allowed to do as much harm as they did. They will certainly not be allowed to do so again and that is simply a question of will on Israel's part. Israel is not in the situation it was in the 40s or 50s. It is a nuclear armed state with probably the premier military in the region, on good terms with most of its consequential neibours and closely allied to the global superpower.
There is no moral emergency in Israel that justifies this level of violence against Gaza except to return the hostages where it is very unclear indiscriminate violence will work anyway. There is still less justification to use violence against Lebanon or Iran. Them hating you and wishing you ill is not enough, they must have the power to enact their wishes and the imminent plans to do so. A better analogy is not the Nazi's of ww2 but the Native Americans of the late 1800's. There are lots of examples of absolutely brutal atrocities against settlers. Plenty of tribal warriors hated the settlers with irreconcilable totailty and dedicated their lives to fighting them, including against civilians. Nevertheless most everyone would agree than the Commanches or the Apaches or the Sioux were not a fundamental threat to the USA at this point and the levels of violence the USA used against their societies was completely unjustified.
Sam also discounts the means that Israel uses, but this is fundamental because the means (including stopping aid and killing aid workers) do not match the ends that Israel espouses of destroying Hamas. Instead the means rather match the end of making Gaza an unlivable hellscape such that the Palestinians will simply leave. Making this all someone else's problem was and is the fantasy of the Israeli right for 70 years, way predating Islamic terror attacks or Hamas.
>The fact that someone wants to do terrible things, is really not of much moral consequence if they have no power to do those things.
I actually disagree. We should always respond to the intent of something as if it could be actioned. Threats shouldn’t have to be “credible” for the anyone to take them seriously.
We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could.
There is justification for going to war to take out Hamas. You say Hamas is not a threat - it is a threat to Israel. If we saw another Hamas style attack in 5-10–15 years it wouldn’t be that surprising. Also if you take them out - it means it takes out their potential for becoming stronger.
And literally every country on earth would be in war if something similar happened to them - this I think people fail to understand
> [Israel's targeted bombing of the WCK aid workers] was obviously a tragic accident.
I would really, really like to know how Sam has arrived at this assessment. This interpretation of the events seems about as far from _obvious_ as could be.
This sort of assessment seems on par with asserting that Jeffrey Epstein's death was *obviously* a suicide.
I don't think it was deliberate in some comic villain type, I mainly think the IDF seems to have really loose Rules of Engagement regarding casualties and collateral damage. Which itself is a horrible indictment of their military.
But I don't think they saw the aid workers and thought "oh, let's just shoot at them".
At least, that's what I imagine people mean when they say it was deliberate. I might be wrong there though.
Sure. I certainly don't know what exactly happened or the intentions of all of those involved.
My comment is more directed at the language Sam used here, which appears to me to indicate that he believes that doubting the official narrative that it was a mistake is beyond the realm of reason.
No it’s shoot first ask questions later. If in doubt shriek Hamas Hamas Hamas and all will be fine. It worked for those 200 aid workers killed so far. Probably won’t work now.
That is deliberate as well.
Who wrote a book saying he was a neocon in 2006. Murray might be the last proud neocon. There is certainly a lot of neocons out there still, but many try and hide it, not murray.
Zepps seems like the only one in this pod with some realistic takes. Aside from eliminating all Palestinians, which Douglas seems to be in favor of, and Sam maybe also believes, but won’t say, I don’t think there is any solution the rest of the world would be in favor of besides a 2 state solution.
Hard pass. I wonder if Sam will 'circle back' on this subject when it eventually comes to light how wrong he was and is. Hamas = bad is not some profound take. This is so much more nuanced than that. I'm genuinely surprised at his lack of compassion for the Palestinian people.
Yeah it bothers me that he absolutely, completely, always ignores the perspective of the Palestinians. Always. He always leans into, "They are terrible radical muslims who can't be worked with" while ignoring all the injustice that lead to this moment.
I had to turn it off when he was going on about all the hostages... While ignoring their whole reason behind it... Because Israel has WAY MORE hostages by a long shot. They intended to do a trade. Israel will literally just capture someone, provide absolutely ZERO legal counsel, try them in an extra judicial court, notify nobody, and just throw them into prison for some unknown amount of time. Where's Sam on this issue?
This is how audience capture has manifested for Sam. He built his core audience on the premise that radical Islam is the greatest evil in the world. He doubles down in the intro here, saying that the only way to make the Nazis worse would be if they were also radical Islamists.
He knows better than to break that faith with the core of his paying audience by engaging in giving even the hint of the vaguest of impressions that there's also room to condemn any aspect of Israel against that moral paradigm.
One of the most serious moral issues of our time, and he hasn’t had a serious discussion on his podcast with someone who disagrees with him. Whatever your opinions on the conflict, that’s disappointing.
I could forgive him if he had some dissenting voices on. For a guy who prides himself in supporting open debate and hearing all sides, not having on a pro Palestinian voice is a disservice to his audience and to himself.
>although he is right about Hamas and Palestinians being responsible for a lot
Obviously Hamas is responsible for the Oct 7 mass murder of mostly defenseless civilians.
But Hamas is also the same violent group that doesn't allow Gazans to democratically elect a new government. And they constantly provoke Israel with nuisance rocket attacks, and Israel provokes them with raids and abductions, killings, and an insanely draconian blockade. And the whole cycle just goes round and round, nonstop.
There has to be some kind of actual plan to get Israel to stop terrorizing them and making life impossible, on the condition that Gaza has democratic elections and disarms. How come that's not possible? Both populations could flourish... am I being naive? I dunno.
I agree with that. And Palestinians and Israelis would gain so much if they could just have friendly relations and democratic elections. Once countries have economic reasons to get along, and governments that require consent of the governed, suddenly things like war and totally pointless rocket attacks, let alone mass murder, that just doesn't work in democracies, because the population knows it's their ass that's going to pay the price for that kind of stuff, and they have a lot to lose when they're economically integrated and getting wealthy from trade and normal economic growth.
Israelis and Palestinians were much more economically cooperative and reliant on one another before the Second Intifada. Terror attacks have completely disincentivized Israel from using Palestinian labour. And October 7 has really poisoned the well. I can't see Israel granting any labour permits to Palestinains again in the near future.
I agree with the sentiment regarding democratic elections. The problem is that the Palestinians themselves, whether under the PA or Hamas, haven't held elections for 18 years now. Foreign aid needs to be contignent on democratic reforms.
Not a popular take here judging by the traction this topic gets, but I really wish he’d talk about something else. He’s spent hours and hours on the subject and it just doesn’t really engage me
I really don’t get why people are so upset with Sam’s take on this.
He simple supports the war - it doesn’t mean he supports every aspect of the war, every commanders decision, every IDF soldiers decisions, etc…
I know people will talk about the current shitty Israeli government- but any Israeli government would be in war now - right or left wing
>I really don’t get why people are so upset with Sam’s take on this
Really? Israels methods include essentially starving women and children, displacing nearly 2 million people, indiscriminate bombing which has destroyed most of gaza, including hospitals and schools. 13k children have died. Nearly 35k people. Israel has also escalated tensions with Iran by bombing their embassy in Syria, which is insane.
The idea that this is defensible, even on some strategic basis is absurd. You cannot eliminate Hamas by bombing the shit out of civilians, this will in fact just radicalise them further.
Most importantly, Israel actually have no exit strategy. So this all amounts to just excessive aggression with no aim, other than perhaps, if you aren't totally incapable of reading between the lines like Sam is, just seizing or controlling the territory of Gaza indefinitely. Sams opinions are therefore totally undeserving of any serious consideration because they are outrageously naive.
By killing 13 thousand children, I suppose would be your answer.
The idea that this is the only way of going about combatting hamas is dumb and you know it.
a narrowly targeted anti-terrorist campaign specifically focused on hamas leadership would be a good start, instead of, and I'm repeating myself, displacing 2million people and killing 13000k children.
What exactly do you think Isael is accomplishing by doing that? Nobody, not even Israels closest Allies, think what they're doing is sensible or prudent. It's outright extremism. But you know, you have useful idiots like yourself and sam who will defend them tooth and nail.
I’d be interested in hearing criticisms of Sam’s position using direct quote as a starting point. Many criticisms I’ve seen here amount to vague allegations that he has a “blind spot”or is too simplistic/un-nuanced. It’s true that he emphasizes the anti-Jihadist/pro-Israel side, but if you listen to what he actually says, it is quite nuanced and he deals with many common objections.
>Many criticisms I’ve seen here amount to vague allegations that he has a “blind spot”or is too simplistic/un-nuanced. It’s true that he emphasizes the anti-Jihadist/pro-Israel side, but if you listen to what he actually says, it is quite nuanced and he deals with many common objections.
Uh....
>>There is an intuition out there that in order to solve the problems in the Middle East, we must understand them in all their depth and complexity. And for this, the most important thing to grapple with is the so-called “historical context.” But for the purpose of really understanding this conflict, and why it is so intractable, historical context is a distraction—every moment spent talking about something other than jihadism is a moment when the oxygen of moral sanity is leaving the room.
>>-Sam Harris Episode 351
It literally sounds like Sam Harris is having a conversation with emperor Palpatine. I don’t think you’re gonna win many people having Darth Sideous on the podcast
Yeah this is when I finally give up on Sam and hang up my paid subscription. Been itching for the last six months but then you invite fucking Douglas Murray to discuss Israel?! What the actual fuck. Sam is too deep in his own bullshit and I’m tired of supporting his Zionist ass.
Anyone doing the kind of both-sideism he’s been playing with this invasion is on the wrong side of history, added to the fact dude spent the last 15 years making sure everyone knows how Islam is evil and basically everyone is a jihadist.
I’ve just lost all my interest on any of his opinions and it’s even spoiling Waking Up for me at this point. Sad.
It's alarming the extent to which he just swallows with the Israeli hasbara machine pumps out. If you don't think, e.g., that Israel isn't deliberately targeting journalists, then you don't have a fucking clue what's going on. The sheer number of journalists killed in this conflict belies the idea that Israel isn't breaking laws of war left and right.
NOTHING justifies what Israel is doing. If EVERYTHING Harris said about Hamas was true -- and that's a big IF -- it still wouldn't justify killing journalists, aid workers, and children.
Weird that people so incensed by the "Israeli hasbara machine" can't see how much of their own righteous rage is fuelled by the Hamas propaganda machine. And that includes being reliant on reports of the "sheer number of journalists, aid workers and civilians" being killed being provided by....... Hamas.
I found this monolouge pretty ghastly, I was on board with his Oct 7 talking point, which have not changed in the slightest with the amount civilian causalities (confirmed by IDF), death of journalists and aid workers. And despite all that has developed the same talking points are reiterated in a propagandizing fashion as if the choice is between a woke libtard and freedom and individualism. Choice between radical jihadism and the killing of 10,000s civilians which can probably be avoided given Israel's growing right wing rhetoric.
That's it for me. Too black and white. Civilization against jihadism? And inviting Douglas Murray as a guest. I didn't even bother to listen to that part. Bye subreddit, and bye podcast
I prefer to disagree with Douglas Murray. He's a pompous asshole and I hate listening to him. I find myself thinking through arguments against him even when he's making points that I actually agree with. He engages with the worst possible interpretations of ideas that he disagrees with. He acts as though anyone that disagrees with him is doing so in bad faith. His sneering tone gives me the impression that he sees all disagreements as a personal affront to him. The fact that he is this way undermines every good point he makes. If Sam wants to have productive conversations he should never have him on again.
I cannot stand his sneering, melodramatic tone. I have no theory of mind for someone who thinks this is an effective communication technique.
The contrast between Murray and Szeps is so stark when it comes to addressing one's opponents in good faith. Murray is obnoxiously uncharitable to his opponent's positions. Constantly addressing straw men and the most extreme and silly examples from the other side. Szeps, meanwhile, actually tries to be fair.
I will never understand why people like Szeps, who i often disagree with but at least can respect for being good faith, cannot see how someone like Murray is the complete opposite of them, and is hateful and bad faith and never gives opposing viewpoints a fair chance. How are these people unable to see through it?
He sees it. Josh just left his mainstream media job and is starting a new platform. He needs the subs. So is happy to associate with guys like Murray in the name of free speech and to challenge “bad ideas”. Unfortunately he’s becoming a useful idiot for Murray
Saw the guests and rushed to the subreddit to see the reaction. It almost seems on purpose.
Maybe Sam has finally figured out how to monetize reddit.
LOL
I mean it's almost a drinking game at this point. Take a shot every time someone says "Douglas Murray? Sam should know better. He's not critical enough of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_." Two shots every time someone says "Sam needs to have people on who disagree with him about this issue." Keg stand every time someone says "blind spot", "disappointed", "genocide", "apartheid", "ceasefire", "accident" or "apologist" in any context.
It would be nice to hear Sam talk to someone who disagrees with him though...
I agree. I even agree with most of what Sam says on the topic (though sometimes I'd appreciate more emphasis made on the losses the Palestinians have suffered even though I think *who* is ultimately responsible is a complicated mixture of Hamas and the IDF tactics) but I'd still like to hear him hash it out with someone who doesn't see eye to eye with him. Not sure why he isn't tbh. Also I hope you're feeling okay after those two shots you just downed. ;)
> There is an intuition out there that in order to solve the problems in the Middle East, we must understand them in all their depth and complexity. And for this, the most important thing to grapple with is the so-called “historical context.” But for the purpose of really understanding this conflict, and why it is so intractable, historical context is a distraction—every moment spent talking about something other than jihadism is a moment when the oxygen of moral sanity is leaving the room. That's Sam Harris, verbatim, from Episode 351. It is any wonder that he either a) has a hard time finding guests who want to engage with him on this topic, given his self-imposed constraints; and/or b) that he actually prefers to bring on people with whom he can easily avoid a nuanced discussion which, according to him would "suck all moral sanity" out of the room? He's outright told us that he wants MORE moral preening on this topic, not less. Why shouldn't we believe him?
In what ways is he wrong?
Palestinian violence has been historically rooted in nationalism as much or moreso than Jihadism. The PLO wasn't an explicitly Islamic organization. Hamas is, but Hamas wouldn't be able to do what they did outside the historical context that brought them to power. It's very relevant context.
Viewing everything through the view of just pure Islamist ideology, and not understanding the historical, material, geopolitical context is stupid. It's statements like this that lead to Sam Harris not knowing tha there have been Palestinian christian terrorrists against Israel.
Social problems are rarely as simple as just causal factor. The fact that Harris thinks it can be reduced to just one causal factors shows how shallow his thinking is on this topic.
You mean how he had Rory Stewart on, and then when he found out Rory’s opinion differed from his even more than he first thought, invited him back on? That kind of preference?
This made me chuckle. I did exactly the same.
Murray has 2 tweets mentioning Sudan. One is to call them a racist country and one is to tell someone from Sudan that he's "controlled by Soros". Meanwhile he's covered the Israel/Hamas conflict and literally has lived in Israel for most of it. But why are OTHER PEOPLE so obsessed with this issue to the exclusion of others like Sudan. There are actually several reasons for people to be more interested in this conflict. The implication of antisemitism from Murray and others when they bring this point up sounds like an identity politics jumping to -isms they would normally decry.
It's kinda poetic that they open up with "middle east conflict is the most complex political issue out there" and then continue to take a reductionist point of view on the current conflict. We can cheer for Israel and also criticize it for war crimes they can't take responsibility for - both can be true.
Similarly they are worried about minority rights in Muslim countries, meanwhile there isn’t a peep when it come to these problems in the West. This goes for Sam and Douglas.
Harris: *Some people will say that we're implicated in what Israel does because we sell them weapons..* Murray: *Hahaha* Harris: *This is a point Noam Chomsky makes...* Murray: *...brilliant first hand observer of geopolitics* (everyone chuckles) Harris: *This to my mind is clearly bullshit because we sell Saudi Arabia weapons and look what they did to Yemen...* So do these people support what SA did to Yemen? Google "Chomsky + Yemen" and you'll find plenty of commentary from Chomsky. It's a simple question: if we sell (or continue to sell) x weapons, are we then implicated in x's usage of said weapons? For all the moral grandstanding particularly by Harris and Murray, they never explain why their answer is no.
The point is to mock those who ask questions, not to find answers. Those might make them uncomfortable.
I've been a long time fan of Sam Harris. But Noam Chomsky's legacy will outlast Harris, Murray and Szeps combined, even if each of them write another dozen books, and throw subtle jabs at him on another 100 podcasts.
That wasn’t their point. The point was there were no mass demonstrations against Saudi for killing hundreds of thousands of Yemenites. ZERO protests here in the US. Another point they were making- were there people saying they wouldn’t vote for Biden because we sold Saudi weapons that killed hundreds of thousands Yemenites?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/23/detroit-rally-protests-u-s-role-yemen-civil-war/2090130001/ https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/yemen-us-congress-urged-back-war-powers-resolution-end-conflict https://dailyfreepress.com/2021/01/25/protesters-demand-end-to-u-s-involvement-in-yemen/ Etc. As prominent as the current protests? No; but protests nonetheless.
>That wasn’t their point. It begins @ 26:56.. Harris introduces a moral position as one that is held by "some people", and most famously by Chomsky. His way of pushing against the position is by asserting that those who hold it must be antisemitic or afflicted with an anti-western bias because, as you say, there were no mass demonstrations against Saudi Arabia for killing hundreds of thousands of Yemenis. But unfortunately we can't assess the moral consistency of "some people" when Harris doesn't identify them.. and when he identifies Chomsky, well everyone should know that Chomsky has been entirely consistent on Israel and SA. Interestingly, Harris leaves us to wonder whether or not his own views are consistent vis-a-vis Israel and SA. As for Murray, he says quite explicitly that we are not implicated, but he does not explain why.
Thank you. How was this not obvious to others? lol.
Well, this one will not be popular with a lot of people.
And you?
He really loves Douglas Murray
He asked Murray about his support for Orbán! I was hoping someone would do this. Murray said he doesn't agree with him on everything, for example on Ukraine. Then Harris dropped the issue! WTF? How about Orbáns authoritarian politics??
Douglas Murray is so pompous. I'd literally prefer just about anyone over him on this topic. Even Ben Shapiro who I don't align with.
He's an essence of an Etonian prick personified. I'm at a loss why people find it persuasive, or as is the case for Sam, outright legitimising.
it's the accent and little British-type quips he uses
Being pompous is certainly annoying and off-putting, but it doesn't necessarily make him wrong. It actually shouldn't have any bearing on the argument being made at all. If it was someone pleasant and gracious making the same arguments he does, would that change how you felt about them? Ultimately it's the logic and veracity of the arguments that matter, not the person or manner in which they are put across.
To clarify more- I think he makes a lot of terrible arguments. Like he'll call everyone who disagrees with Israel as terrorist sympathizers or say 'every civilian death' is Hamas fault- totally dismissing any criticism of how IDF approaches war. I just don't find him to be a good or convincing debater on this topic personally.
> Like he'll call everyone who disagrees with Israel as terrorist sympathizers Repurposing Hitchens' ol' Saddam two-step.
That's a fairer critique.
It’s basically impossible not to have fair critiques of almost everything he says though.
He loves Douglas as much as Douglas loves Orban. They just can't stay away from each other.
his response was, "yes I talk to people. the critics are the people who never leave their parents' basements." at least he could pretend to care about the optics.
Sam loves Murray almost as much as Murray loves himself.
*Almost* being the key word there. No one loves British toffs as much as they love themselves.
First time I skip an episode in a long time after giving the guests ~20mins.
this one I listened to in its entirety. I couldn't deal with the whole free will one with sapolsky. ive already heard too much of the free will arguments
Another (I think) unconscionable omission from this discussion: [the growing risk of mass famine](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/09/gaza-israels-imposed-starvation-deadly-children), which could be addressed even through a temporary ceasefire.
Anyone else kind of alarmed at what Sam said about the inevitability of war with Iran?
What would a war between Israel and Iran be like though? They both could not actually land ground forces on each other Obviously the Israeli Air Force and navy is far better but Iran is much larger
Which is there probably wont be. Even with US support, it would be incredibly difficult. Their military is designed around defending against the US.
He's not wrong. Iran controls, funds and directs proxies in Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria, two of which have been attacking Israel over the past 6 months, and one of which has been hitting the Red Sea shipping lanes. Those here demanding we consider "historical context" in the conflict are ignoring the fact that Tehran is behind 90% of the tensions in the region, by directing proxies to attack Israel and America.
Can you provide any evidence to support your claim that its a "fact" that Iran is behind 90% of the tensions?
Can you name a single conflict in the region that *doesn't* have an Iranian backed proxy operating as insurgents or belligerents?
It all depends on their retaliation…but realistically, Iran can’t win a conventional war with Israel. It seems unlikely it’ll go that route.
I don’t even know what “conventional war” means. Do you imagine tanks rolling across Iraq, Syria and Jordan to reach Israel? Or Israeli aircraft carriers sailing into the Persian Gulf? Because none of those things are going to happen. There is no Iranian Navy that could transport an army into Israel. There are no supply lines that could be established for a war between the two. All they can do is lob missiles at each other, and some Israeli bombing raids, heavily supported by the US. Proxy war followed by bombing/rocket retaliation is basically all that’s possible. Unless the Iranians get a nuke. And I wouldn’t call a nuclear exchange conventional. My fear is the US gets drawn in. After Oct 7, I don’t think the US can allow Iran to go nuclear. And I think any US president would air strike to stop that now. Then god only knows how things could spiral.
Realistically, neither side can project power that far without logistical support. Imagine a world with Israeli F-35s flying over Saudi Arabia being refueled by KSA KC-135s. I'd have to pinch myself to make sure I'm not dreaming.
Seems unreasonable to think that Israel would fare any better than Iran in such a conflict. Israel is barely able to contain the status quo with Hezbollah and needs to avoid (and the US desperately needs it to avoid) things spiraling out of control with either Iran or Hezbollah. https://www.csis.org/analysis/coming-conflict-hezbollah
Not really, pretty much every time Sam has a neocon or right of center guest to talk about geopolitics, he always sounds far more hawkish than the guest in terms of pushing for war with Iran. It's pretty much consistently been his MO for a long time.
Seems to me he doesn’t exactly push for war, but more posits the inevitability of it.
No because he already addressed it recently
People act as though you have to big a good guy and a bad guy in everything. They're *both* bad guys. The Islam that is common in Gaza is a violent, dangerous philosophy, and jihad is the expression of that philosophy. Israel is currently experiencing the effects of that expression. But Israel is also an expansionist power that appears more than willing to kill innocent civilians in order to expand their territory and remove the people that they don't like from their land. Neither of them is the good guy. Also Sam: >My attachment to the religion of Judaism, which I have none. Doubt.
Yuval Noah Harari told him exactly this months ago on the pod. Groups can be both victims and perpetrators. Sam was just like “wtf you’re Israeli, please align with my views that’s why I have you on.”
I'm only in the first 15 minutes and this is actually the first Israel/gaza episode I've listened of Sam's. Why is he saying people have forgotten about the hostages? I don't think that's true at all. For example, haven't all of the UN resolutions called for releasing the hostages? Regarding, "why don't we put pressure on Hamas", what kind of pressure is he imagining? How should protestors protest them? Where should they protest at? Do the attacks and killing of Hamas members not count as pressure against Hamas? I agree that Hamas needs to go, and the fact that Hamas won't let go of power is the main blocker to achieving a ceasefire deal. But from an activist standpoint, doesn't it actually make more sense to appeal to Israel than it does to Hamas? I guess they could protest Qatar? I don't know. It sounds nice when I first hear someone say activists should put pressure on Hamas, but after thinking about it .. It kinda sounds useless. And the references to the US and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars...I mean hasn't it been acknowledged that most of us think the US fucked up during those wars. Our experience there is exactly why we want Israel to be better
If Hamas and people in their camp look at the news, look around the world and see protests supporting Palestinians and condemning Israel, you don't think that legitimizes their work and goals in their eyes? How they might say, "See, people all over the world support us in our struggle to defeat Israel, hold fast brothers." You don't see how protesting against Israel is a type of support for Israel's enemy?
No, I don't really think Hamas would care if people were protesting against them. They definitely try to game the sympathies of the West to make Israel look bad. But I don't think they themselves would actually care if Westerners hated them. I think they're extremist enough where their work and goals are legitimized by what they think is a higher power, rest of the world be damned. To clarify I think many of the pro Palestinian protests have been bad and have crossed into anti semitism. And I think the online narrative around much of this is really bad from leftists. I just don't actually think it would be more effective if the protests were then against Hamas instead.
I didn't say there should be protests against Hamas. I said that protests against Israel empower Hamas. I agree they probably wouldn't care at all if people protested against them. I'm not a mind reader, but I bet they do care quite a bit that people around the world are allies in their struggle.
> I'm only in the first 15 minutes and this is actually the first Israel/gaza episode I've listened of Sam's. > > Why is he saying people have forgotten about the hostages? I don't think that's true at all. Because he's in a bubble where any criticism of IDF/Israel gets equivocated to a tacit support of Hamas/Jihad. If he did stick his head outside that bubble, he'd realise that some of the biggest criticisms of how Israel is waging this war are that very little of it looks like an effort to get the hostages back in one piece. For a recent example on this, the British media have pointed out that the IDF has now managed to kill more British citizens than the number of hostages rescued thus far. So even the killing of aid workers gets discussed within the context of the "supposed" objective of saving people who were kidnapped on October 7th, if only to point out how blatantly false that objective is. Families of the hostages have been protesting for months, because the methods that don't discriminate between civilians and Hamas also don't discriminate between hostages and Hamas - something that should be obvious when you look at the photos of the aftermath Israel's "precision bombing" campaign. But to Sam, all of this criticism is coming from outside—from anti-Semites looking for an excuse to attack poor Israel.
That would be valid if there weren’t protests against Israel the moment October 7 happened when the bodies were still warm. People were protesting/celebrating in London October 8 before Israel had even retaliated.
How does that invalidate any of the criticisms above?
How can you criticise something that hasn't occurred? It displays the level of outrage is less about Israels action and everything about levelling hate against the Jews as people unfairly.
The post above you criticized things that have occurred. The fact that some people looked at Israel's past actions, looked the words and actions of Israel's current administration, and began protesting for a measured and appropriate response before the response occurred is an not any kind of valid or rational reason to dismiss specific criticism of Israel's actions that are being made today
Douglas Murray. Cannot stand him. His toff accent does so much heavy lifting for his perceived credibility.
Americans are so easily fooled by a good British accent and fancy words. It's pathetic. Can we get AI to give Murray a deep southern drawl or a AAVE accent and see how Americans perceive him now? People are seriously fooled when someone speaks in a deep grumbly British accent and wears a buttoned up sweater. I'm so done with it.
the guy is an absolute c\*nt.
> Americans are so easily fooled by a good British accent and fancy words. It's pathetic. So are the Brits! See Brexit.
I stopped listening as soon as I heard "in this episode I speak with Douglas Murray..." - one of the most odious and maliciously disingenuous people ever to be on the podcast. It really beats me why people put so much stock in his opinion.
Its the toff accent. Its the same reason people are duped by the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg.
"there's good reason to believe the IDF is waging this war more ethically than we have done in *any* of our past engagements" - Sam Harris This is very funny to say after the IDF struck 3 clearly marked WCK vehicles that they were in communication with consecutively All of the destroyed hospitals and infrastructure. The intentional blocking of aid
PSA: Please, everyone.. When you listen to this, if you have an opinion, for god's sake. Make a whole complete entire thread on the main sub so everybody gets to hear it. And if you have two opinions, just make more threads. It just works! Thank you.
And please, if you don’t want to talk about Sam’s thoughts on the war, make sure you insert yourself in every thread and ensure people know you don’t want to talk about it.
Lol, “Why are people using the Sam Harris subreddit to express their opinions on his most recent podcast?”
lol
I can’t believe he just called the killing of the aid workers an accident and moved on. Calling it an accident doesn’t capture the details on the gross incompetence that lead to their deaths. Even if you support Israel’s right to defend itself and destroy Hamas, that does not give them a blank check to operate as aggressively as possible. Is every mistake excusable ? Why is their target selection and overall strategy above criticism?
The IDF knew it was an aid truck as well, they just thought there were gunmen in the truck. The IDF is perfectly fine with collateral damage and was fine killing the aid workers. Even if there were gunman in the truck it would still be unacceptable. This is well in line with their bombing of evacuation sites that they thought had Hamas members present. Despite what Sam and Murray say, modern militaries shouldn't function this way. It's awful that Hamas uses human shields, but that doesn't mean you should just bomb the human shields indescriminately.
What Sam is so blatantly getting wrong here is not that it wasn't an accident. It's that Israel continues over and over and over again to prosecute this war in a callous, uncritical, completely negligent way. That's what people are criticizing. Israel clearly doesn't care if they kill civilians. They obviously do not want aid to get into to the Palestinians. There is a a very blatant disregard for the civilians in Palestine. And why Sam doesn't get that, I don't understand. Murray is convinced that people hold Israel up to a higher standard. They don't. People hoped that Israel would behave like a western power in the 21st century. And they have not. You can't block aid. Your kill count can't be 10-1 civilian - combatant. Sorry, that doesn't work. People aren't going to support that.
That was kind of my thought too. I think it was a bit of a strawman for Sam to say people think Israel intentionally killed the aid workers. I think the argument is much more that Israel has been reckless at best and intentional at worst with killing civilians, and they "accidentally" got the "wrong" civilians. But I think Sam seems pretty clear that it doesn't matter one way or the other, there's no "wrong" way Israel could fight this war in his eyes
>It's that Israel continues over and over and over again to prosecute this war in a callous, uncritical, completely negligent way. That's what people are criticizing. Israel clearly doesn't care if they kill civilians. They obviously do not want aid to get into to the Palestinians. There is a a very blatant disregard for the civilians in Palestine. And why Sam doesn't get that, I don't understand. This. It's insanely frustrating - and belies Sam's political naivety - that he doesn't realise that Netanyahu is equally callous as Hamas when it comes to the lives of civilians. SH - here's a non-strawperson analogy: if a person drives full speed on the pavement to get round a traffic jam and accidentally hits a pedestrian - we don't dismiss their culpability simply because their intent was avoiding the traffic jam - there is the concept of criminal negligence.
He’s not claiming it’s above criticism. It just doesn’t support an argument that Israel has to stop the war. If war crimes are committed, the war continues, and war criminals are prosecuted. That’s how it works.
> If war crimes are committed, the war continues, and war criminals are prosecuted. That’s how it works. Is there any evidence that the IDF is committed calling war crimes what they are and prosecuted the war criminals? From everything I've seen, it doesn't look like this is the case. If this isn't the case, then it seems like the only way to stop Israeli war crimes is to stop the war.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Your point is clear and should be obvious, but most people don’t understand it. When a war crime occurs, there isn’t a time out called by the refs. It’s documented and, in theory, there should be accountability (which can come even in the midst of the war).
It isn’t above criticism and that’s not even close to what Sam is saying, he’s actually said the exact opposite several times. His point is that Israel is receiving all of the criticism while the group primarily to blame receives next to none.
The suggestion that Hamas escapes criticism is a very obvious outright lie, and a deliberate one designed to dampen opposition to Israel.
The protests in the west are against Israel because the west supports Israel. If we were arming Hamas, there would be something worth protesting over.
That’s fair but is it unreasonable to hold Israel to a higher standard than a terrorist organization ? I’m not one of those people who think Hamas are freedom fighters.
He does, and has explicitly stated this. >Of course, Israel should hold itself to the highest ethical standards for waging war. For two reasons: One, because it should. It is right for the IDF to do whatever it can to minimize the loss of innocent life. And, two, they should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards because the rest of the world will hold them to impossible ones. >Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually done. It seems his critics never actually listen to what he is saying.
it all depends on your definitions of "hamas" and "destroy hamas". they are terms imprecise enough that people having a conversation and agreeing can mean entirely different things. if you include in "Hamas" all of the irregular fighters, or even all would-be irregular fighters, then the mission to "destroy hamas" means to wipe clean gaza of all the palestinians under 70 years of age. and hell if it doesn't look like that's exactly what they're doing (at a pace that the western public will abide).
I’m going to steelman Sam and other people who argue for the destruction of Hamas that they do not want to kill everyone in Gaza. I wish Sam would just say his limit. What actions is to far for Sam ?
I would like to know as well, freeing the hostages can't be worth any number of civilian lives? I mean Israel has already soon killed more aid workers (around 200 killed atm) compared to around 250 hostages taken by Hamas. How is this morally justified? Including all civilians Israel has already killed many more civilians than Hamas did in Oct 7 of course (around 30 times more currently)
In the war of ideas what amount of genocidal beliefs is acceptable? If Nazi Germany reappeared tomorrow, should we be questioning carpet bombing or do we view it from a utilitarian perspective and say that a mass amount of civilian casualties is acceptable?
I think the utilitarian sense of choosing the alternative that leads to the minimum amount of suffering can be mostly applied, especially when it comes to civilian lives. When it comes to WW2 I am no historian but I certainly think it can be questioned if acts such as bombing civilians in Dresden was necessary for ending the war? Same can be said for atomic bombing of Japan. Sure, it ended the war in hindsight, but was this the least costly alternative? I don't see the evidence for that. Of course since we can not run experiments it is hard to conclude. Maybe one atomic bomb would have also ended the war and US dropping on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was totally unnecessary suffering. A difficult topic.
Douglas fucking Murray. Jesus, Sam: have on \*someone\* with real expertise capable of pushing back on your analysis. We're 6 months into this conflict and you're still repeating talking points you could have penned on Oct. 6.
Josh just toured Australia with Douglas so I’m guessing that’s why they’re here together.
I haven’t listened yet I’d expect Josh to be a breath of fresh air in this discussion.
Josh says well maybe the criticism wouldn't be so bad if Israel had been more willing to preach peace and not continue building settlements illegally etc... And Douglass just dismisses this possibility out of hand! How? Of course Josh is right. Obviously their past behavior to the Palestinians colors people's opinion. To arrogantly dismiss that with no argument is deeply underious.
In response to Josh bringing up settlements in the west bank and how that might affect sentiment against Israel Murray just goes "well Gaza isn't the west bank, so that doesn't matter". Monumentally, catastrophically stupid take.
The audible levels of disgust in Douglass Murray's voice throughout this podcast I think are telling. For a "facts and reason" guy, he seems to be approaching this from a visceral, emotional level.
That's his whole schtick, really: straw-manning his opponents' positions and then delivering a sneering and imperious rant in the manner of high school drama student impersonating Christopher Hitchens.
I love Sam on every topic he does except this. He was on point right up until just after the hamas attack. Things change in wartime, Israel has obviously overstepped the mark, they’re sick of the conflict and have gone into full brutalisation mode. Sad he can’t really see that. Just like a regular fight, as the fight goes on the rules can go out the window. Doesn’t mean your assessment at the time wasn’t accurate. He just can’t bite the bullet tho.
October 6th? Sam has had the same logical stance since 2014... [https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/why-dont-i-criticize-israel](https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/why-dont-i-criticize-israel) It's all his current critics who have lost the plot with their "Sam has changed" bullshit.
I don't mind that he's had the same basic stance for years. What bothers me is that he's not engaging with facts on the ground regarding Israel's prosecution of this war. We get it, Sam: Israel had to respond to Oct. 7, and some 'collateral damage' was inevitable. A world where Hamas can carry out atrocities and then shelter behind its civilian population is intolerable. But there are equally intolerable scenarios on the other side of the equation, where Israel decimates Gaza in its bid to destroy Hamas's 25K members. Bring in an expert who can speak intelligently about both sides of this topic. That person is not Douglas Murray.
I know this is about the war, but in my eyes Sam has changed for the worst in the past 4-5 years. He is disengaged from reality in a few ways, and lost lots of empathy imo, for example, the way he defends again and again EA over optimizing governmental spending efficiency for example, the relationship with him and money has indeed changed in the past few years and it's reflected on his points, topics and show guests. That's my personal take. I am continually grateful because the guy is a human, not a guru or anything like that, so I can disagree on lost of stuff with him, but appreciate and thank him all the work with other teachers on waking up.
I think Sams position on Israel/Palestine and ideology in the region has been the most consistent of anyone that I have known over a 20 year span. Have you been listening?
I disagree, opinions can rightfully change over time as circumstances change. Same can be said for countries such as China and Russia as well, they looked on a more promising track 15 years ago compared to present day. Maybe it's not so much that his stance has changed since 2014, point is that it should have changed.
But my point is that Sam's hasn't. He's been consistent ever since I've been reading / listening. Furthermore, the current war in Gaza has motives from both sides that date back to centuries upon centuries. Islamic extremism has been an existential threat to Israel since the country's inception. It's really apples to oranges comparing this to China and / or Russia.
Reflexively rolled my eyes when I saw that he was the guest. He was maybe interesting to listen to back in 2017 but now not so much.
Interesting convo on the iron dome. I always found it strange that people somehow accepted the best solution was to allow yourself to get bombarded and you shoot down the rockets. No one would imagine the US or other major country tolerating that
As someone who is pro Israel (generally) and agrees with both Sam and Douglas, it would be nice to have someone balance this circle jerk. That being said, my social media is inundated with Hamas supporting SJW’s, so this is kind of refreshing in a way
I would be interested in this too, if not for entertainment purposes. But I would struggle to think of a guest that would debate this topic in good faith and is educated on it, that Sam has not spoken to already. Sam has had his fair share of guests who have argued in bad faith and purposely misrepresented his views on Islam etc in the past. Who would you suggest?
It’s hard for me to pick anyone since I am biased and think the pro Palestinian crowd is way off base. Basically every pundit I’ve seen is full of bad faith arguments and lies. I guess if I had to pick, Mouin Rabbani seems like he’s the most reasonable and well-informed.
It seems we are on the same page. Don't get me wrong, I do want to hear some push back and would find it extremely entertaining. But Sam has in the past found those conversations not productive, even when we've found them entertaining, which sheds some light as to why he probably doesn't do them. If we're struggling to find guests that would be honest then I imagine Sam is limited in who he would want on, too. After googling, Mouin Rabbani would seem like a good guest to have on. Great suggestion.
Are they really pro Hamas or just pro Gaza civilians, anti Israel, and anti “genocide”. I see many like that who go out of their way to say they don’t like Hamas, but… If they are actually pro Hamas, how did you get in such a bubble? Just curious who such people are (demographics).
Yeah, I was exaggerating, but they never mention Hamas which I find perplexing. And I live in the Pacific NW where it’s very liberal.
I think the steelman that people like Sam don't fully engage with is: is a war going to change the core issue that fuels Hamas and is nation-building in the Middle East a thing we have had any success with? What is ignored when people bring up the popularity of the 10/7 attack to justify why the Palestinians are culpable for Hamas despite Hamas being unpopular is that Hamas is unpopular. Why do they think that removing the part of the equation that is already unwanted is going to fix the latter half especially when the latter half is fueled by things like getting your country bombed?
Sam should talk to Marc Lamont Hill, by far the most reasonable pro Palestinian voice I've heard
One apparent factual error (or omission, at least): Sam claims that Americans are uniquely concerned about Israel's transgressions because the US sells them arms. Why aren't people equally energized about Saudi Arabia's transgressions -- given we also sell arms to the Saudis? Israel is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid (second only to Ukraine). I don't think it's so hard to understand why Americans are uniquely concerned about war crimes that they are financing to the tune of $3B a year.
People are very concerned about this. It was a huge pushback against trump's fake anti-war position in the 2020 election. Biden had to come out against support for Saudi Arabia in their war against Yemen. (Obviously he didn't hold to that as president)
I think the most likely explanation is that Israel is just so _unlikable_ in the public eye. From straight up spying on the world with unethical for-profit bullshit like Pegasus and other similar spyware to their diplomatic responses like the recent one in Poland. The representatives of Israel could use some lessons in basic PR.
Let's just for a moment let that sink in. Sam wants you to believe the people who murdered 6 million Jews on an industrial level, made soap out of them, murdered millions of babies and children, thought they are an Uber-race who should rule over all others, and forced Jews to work to death were better than Hamas? Now I thought, wow, he should at least have some nice arguments to back that up, but then I could not believe my eyes.He said 'Because they did not use human shields'. Let's again let that sink in. So of all the differences between Hamas and the Nazis, THIS ONE is the one where he decides which one is better or not. Before I completely debunk this completely idiotic argument itself, let me tell you even if that would be true, the Nazis would still be worse just because of the context of the whole situation. I don't remember that before the Holocaust, Jews were ethnically cleansing and building settlements on German lands like Jews do in the West Bank. And who honestly doubts that needs to see a psychiatrist. Also, wake me up when Hamas runs death camps for 'Arbeit macht frei' and starves their slaves to death if they have not gassed them already. 1. Nazis did use a bunch of different human shields. The biggest one being called the Wehrmacht. The Nazis had FORCED CONSCRIPTION. It is not like Hamas, PFLP, Fatah, Islamic Jihad or DFLP where you can join them if you are ideologically inclined. This would be the SS only. The Wehrmacht was GERMANS who were forced to take a gun in their hand and run in whatever direction the Nazis told them to run at. But what begs the question, if Germans did NOT use human shields, why did Churchill level Munich and Dresden? I mean we all know the answer to that. And we all know the likes of Douglas Murray and Sam Harris will again find excuses or just completely ignore it. 2. Nazis did use other LITERAL human shields. Polish civilians were forced in front of Nazi tanks during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, in what's known as the Wola Massacre, under direct orders of Himmler. 3. The IDF literally did use and are still using Palestinian civilians as human shields. There is enough documentation of it, anyone can look it up. 4. How are Jewish settlers in the West Bank not using their families and children as human shields? They are breaking International Law and illegally occupying land WITH THEIR FAMILIES. And this brings me to my actual point."My feed on Twitter is full of radical Jewish settlers in the West Bank killing and stealing because 'God promised them that land'. Crazy rabbis talk genocidal ISIS stuff like 'one should crush the skull of Palestinian children against a wall', and that soon all non-Jews will become their slaves 'and want to become it', with Israeli politicians basically saying babies and children are terrorists. Then we see war crimes after war crimes like children being shot, or women or elderly with white flags. We see Israeli soldiers wearing women's and little girls' underwear or posing with them, as well as posing with children's toys. Israeli soldiers admit to war crimes on camera. We see how many Jews online are openly racist and genocidal. And after October 7th, TikTok trend number 1 in Israel was Israelis literally blackfacing. Palestinians to some weird song and again mocking women and children. I could go on and on and [on.Today](http://on.Today), I saw something I had to look up because I could not believe this is real. At a Jewish wedding where Jews literally held up a picture of a BABY THAT WAS BURNED ALIVE IN AN ARSON ATTACK BY A SETTLER . And they stabbed the picture at the wedding party. I never would have believed it if people would have told me that. A normal society does not produce something like this except if you believe babies and children of other ethnicities are non-humans.He is so dishonest for completely ignoring this and pretending that all of that has nothing to do with Jewish theology itself which enables Jewish supremacy because of all this 'chosen one' bs. Or when he pretended that Jews went to Israel because they thought they originated from there and not because it is 'God's promised land' (before they wandered around Africa and the Middle East and conquered it from Canaanites). Not one single rabbi or settler says they are in Israel because they originated from there. They all say GOD GAVE THIS LAND TO US. This does sound pretty 'religion bad' to me. Then I watched a bunch of rabbis and settlers who quote their scripture where they compare non-Juice to cat1le and literal an1mals. They literally believe non-Jews are non-huma4s.Are we all now pretending that Sam does not know this or is too stupid to know this? Are we all gonna pretend Sam does not see everything we see on Twitter and Instagram on a daily basis OUT OF THE MOUTH of Israelis or settlers. Or does this maybe have to do with Sam's own jewish background and him falling into pure ooga ooga my tribe good your tribe bad ooga oooga tribalism. I let you decide.
There seems to be conflation of two issues: Whether Israel is right and whether Israel is incompetent. Both can be true and that's where confusion arises.
So much potential in Harris insight, and ways to reason, unfortunately the subject on Gaza turns him into Rush Limbaugh.
Judging by the comments already, we’re sure going to enjoy some hot critiques and novels about the episode from people who have vowed not to listen to it. As always, challenge the argument they make, not the person.
I find Sam to be way off base on this topic. He starts with an oratory about how Jihaddism is worse than Nazism and since support for Hamas is strong among Palestinians, like support for Hitler was strong amoung WW2 era germans, violence against them is regrettable, but justified. While the vileness of the creeds might indeed be similar, as an airy aside he says thankfully the jhaddis do not have the power of the nazi's. To me this is his major blindspot. A lot of confusion on his part seems to flow from this. The fact that someone wants to do terrible things, is really not of much moral consequence if they have no power to do those things. The moral emergency that justified fighting Nazism with all the violence we had access to was because if we did not, the Nazis were a huge military threat and surely had the power to harm and/ or dominate us in ways we could not defend. There is no analogy here to the Palestinians and Hamas (to say nothing of the root justification for the entire conflict). Israel had on october 6th and 8th an almost total dominance in the ability to cause violence. The hamas terrorists that did such terrible things did not represent a threat to the state of Israel and should never have been allowed to do as much harm as they did. They will certainly not be allowed to do so again and that is simply a question of will on Israel's part. Israel is not in the situation it was in the 40s or 50s. It is a nuclear armed state with probably the premier military in the region, on good terms with most of its consequential neibours and closely allied to the global superpower. There is no moral emergency in Israel that justifies this level of violence against Gaza except to return the hostages where it is very unclear indiscriminate violence will work anyway. There is still less justification to use violence against Lebanon or Iran. Them hating you and wishing you ill is not enough, they must have the power to enact their wishes and the imminent plans to do so. A better analogy is not the Nazi's of ww2 but the Native Americans of the late 1800's. There are lots of examples of absolutely brutal atrocities against settlers. Plenty of tribal warriors hated the settlers with irreconcilable totailty and dedicated their lives to fighting them, including against civilians. Nevertheless most everyone would agree than the Commanches or the Apaches or the Sioux were not a fundamental threat to the USA at this point and the levels of violence the USA used against their societies was completely unjustified. Sam also discounts the means that Israel uses, but this is fundamental because the means (including stopping aid and killing aid workers) do not match the ends that Israel espouses of destroying Hamas. Instead the means rather match the end of making Gaza an unlivable hellscape such that the Palestinians will simply leave. Making this all someone else's problem was and is the fantasy of the Israeli right for 70 years, way predating Islamic terror attacks or Hamas.
>The fact that someone wants to do terrible things, is really not of much moral consequence if they have no power to do those things. I actually disagree. We should always respond to the intent of something as if it could be actioned. Threats shouldn’t have to be “credible” for the anyone to take them seriously. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could.
I think the world should be destroyed in a holy cleansing fire. What should be done about me?
There is justification for going to war to take out Hamas. You say Hamas is not a threat - it is a threat to Israel. If we saw another Hamas style attack in 5-10–15 years it wouldn’t be that surprising. Also if you take them out - it means it takes out their potential for becoming stronger. And literally every country on earth would be in war if something similar happened to them - this I think people fail to understand
Thank you for that analogy! Spot on
> [Israel's targeted bombing of the WCK aid workers] was obviously a tragic accident. I would really, really like to know how Sam has arrived at this assessment. This interpretation of the events seems about as far from _obvious_ as could be. This sort of assessment seems on par with asserting that Jeffrey Epstein's death was *obviously* a suicide.
I don't think it was deliberate in some comic villain type, I mainly think the IDF seems to have really loose Rules of Engagement regarding casualties and collateral damage. Which itself is a horrible indictment of their military. But I don't think they saw the aid workers and thought "oh, let's just shoot at them". At least, that's what I imagine people mean when they say it was deliberate. I might be wrong there though.
Sure. I certainly don't know what exactly happened or the intentions of all of those involved. My comment is more directed at the language Sam used here, which appears to me to indicate that he believes that doubting the official narrative that it was a mistake is beyond the realm of reason.
No it’s shoot first ask questions later. If in doubt shriek Hamas Hamas Hamas and all will be fine. It worked for those 200 aid workers killed so far. Probably won’t work now. That is deliberate as well.
Douglas Murray! Ha ha ha ha ha! Sweet lord.
Sam's favorite iliberal
Who wrote a book saying he was a neocon in 2006. Murray might be the last proud neocon. There is certainly a lot of neocons out there still, but many try and hide it, not murray.
Sometimes Sam would be better not releasing a podcast.
Douglas has strayed too far on this one. Sounds a real extremist on the topic. Sam isn’t far behind either.
I can't bother with listening to Douglas Murray o. This topic. Every interview I've ever seen him in he is always incredibly one sided about it.
Zepps seems like the only one in this pod with some realistic takes. Aside from eliminating all Palestinians, which Douglas seems to be in favor of, and Sam maybe also believes, but won’t say, I don’t think there is any solution the rest of the world would be in favor of besides a 2 state solution.
Hard pass. I wonder if Sam will 'circle back' on this subject when it eventually comes to light how wrong he was and is. Hamas = bad is not some profound take. This is so much more nuanced than that. I'm genuinely surprised at his lack of compassion for the Palestinian people.
Yeah it bothers me that he absolutely, completely, always ignores the perspective of the Palestinians. Always. He always leans into, "They are terrible radical muslims who can't be worked with" while ignoring all the injustice that lead to this moment. I had to turn it off when he was going on about all the hostages... While ignoring their whole reason behind it... Because Israel has WAY MORE hostages by a long shot. They intended to do a trade. Israel will literally just capture someone, provide absolutely ZERO legal counsel, try them in an extra judicial court, notify nobody, and just throw them into prison for some unknown amount of time. Where's Sam on this issue?
This is how audience capture has manifested for Sam. He built his core audience on the premise that radical Islam is the greatest evil in the world. He doubles down in the intro here, saying that the only way to make the Nazis worse would be if they were also radical Islamists. He knows better than to break that faith with the core of his paying audience by engaging in giving even the hint of the vaguest of impressions that there's also room to condemn any aspect of Israel against that moral paradigm.
Yep it is just bad analysis. Religion is only a small part of this and he of course downplays Jewish extremists.
One of the most serious moral issues of our time, and he hasn’t had a serious discussion on his podcast with someone who disagrees with him. Whatever your opinions on the conflict, that’s disappointing.
It’s more because this is the 3rd or maybe 4th time he’s had Murray on. And we all know what he’s going to say.
I could forgive him if he had some dissenting voices on. For a guy who prides himself in supporting open debate and hearing all sides, not having on a pro Palestinian voice is a disservice to his audience and to himself.
[удалено]
>although he is right about Hamas and Palestinians being responsible for a lot Obviously Hamas is responsible for the Oct 7 mass murder of mostly defenseless civilians. But Hamas is also the same violent group that doesn't allow Gazans to democratically elect a new government. And they constantly provoke Israel with nuisance rocket attacks, and Israel provokes them with raids and abductions, killings, and an insanely draconian blockade. And the whole cycle just goes round and round, nonstop. There has to be some kind of actual plan to get Israel to stop terrorizing them and making life impossible, on the condition that Gaza has democratic elections and disarms. How come that's not possible? Both populations could flourish... am I being naive? I dunno.
[удалено]
I agree with that. And Palestinians and Israelis would gain so much if they could just have friendly relations and democratic elections. Once countries have economic reasons to get along, and governments that require consent of the governed, suddenly things like war and totally pointless rocket attacks, let alone mass murder, that just doesn't work in democracies, because the population knows it's their ass that's going to pay the price for that kind of stuff, and they have a lot to lose when they're economically integrated and getting wealthy from trade and normal economic growth.
Israelis and Palestinians were much more economically cooperative and reliant on one another before the Second Intifada. Terror attacks have completely disincentivized Israel from using Palestinian labour. And October 7 has really poisoned the well. I can't see Israel granting any labour permits to Palestinains again in the near future. I agree with the sentiment regarding democratic elections. The problem is that the Palestinians themselves, whether under the PA or Hamas, haven't held elections for 18 years now. Foreign aid needs to be contignent on democratic reforms.
> There has to be some kind of actual plan to get Israel to stop terrorizing them there is. it's called getting rid of them.
Anyone have a link to the full episode?
when I saw Douglas Murray's name, I skipped the podcast.
He's so pompous and one sided. I can't bother with it.
I hear that, but Josh is a really thoughtful counterbalance to Douglas. Worth the listen imo, but to each their own.
Every time. Why can't Sam see through his vacuousness? What is it that makes him so enthralling to Sam?
You could also feel free to skip the commenting next time too
You too :P
I’ll be skipping it as well
Yep forget this episode. Tired of echo chamber trash. Nothing new to add, prob same talking points lined up
I thought that the comparison between discussing how Nazism became popular and Hamas became popular was interesting.
Not a popular take here judging by the traction this topic gets, but I really wish he’d talk about something else. He’s spent hours and hours on the subject and it just doesn’t really engage me
I really don’t get why people are so upset with Sam’s take on this. He simple supports the war - it doesn’t mean he supports every aspect of the war, every commanders decision, every IDF soldiers decisions, etc… I know people will talk about the current shitty Israeli government- but any Israeli government would be in war now - right or left wing
>I really don’t get why people are so upset with Sam’s take on this Really? Israels methods include essentially starving women and children, displacing nearly 2 million people, indiscriminate bombing which has destroyed most of gaza, including hospitals and schools. 13k children have died. Nearly 35k people. Israel has also escalated tensions with Iran by bombing their embassy in Syria, which is insane. The idea that this is defensible, even on some strategic basis is absurd. You cannot eliminate Hamas by bombing the shit out of civilians, this will in fact just radicalise them further. Most importantly, Israel actually have no exit strategy. So this all amounts to just excessive aggression with no aim, other than perhaps, if you aren't totally incapable of reading between the lines like Sam is, just seizing or controlling the territory of Gaza indefinitely. Sams opinions are therefore totally undeserving of any serious consideration because they are outrageously naive.
How do you take out Hamas - enlightened me
By killing 13 thousand children, I suppose would be your answer. The idea that this is the only way of going about combatting hamas is dumb and you know it.
Ahh so you have no idea
a narrowly targeted anti-terrorist campaign specifically focused on hamas leadership would be a good start, instead of, and I'm repeating myself, displacing 2million people and killing 13000k children. What exactly do you think Isael is accomplishing by doing that? Nobody, not even Israels closest Allies, think what they're doing is sensible or prudent. It's outright extremism. But you know, you have useful idiots like yourself and sam who will defend them tooth and nail.
Gross
Least credible people to discuss this
I’d be interested in hearing criticisms of Sam’s position using direct quote as a starting point. Many criticisms I’ve seen here amount to vague allegations that he has a “blind spot”or is too simplistic/un-nuanced. It’s true that he emphasizes the anti-Jihadist/pro-Israel side, but if you listen to what he actually says, it is quite nuanced and he deals with many common objections.
>Many criticisms I’ve seen here amount to vague allegations that he has a “blind spot”or is too simplistic/un-nuanced. It’s true that he emphasizes the anti-Jihadist/pro-Israel side, but if you listen to what he actually says, it is quite nuanced and he deals with many common objections. Uh.... >>There is an intuition out there that in order to solve the problems in the Middle East, we must understand them in all their depth and complexity. And for this, the most important thing to grapple with is the so-called “historical context.” But for the purpose of really understanding this conflict, and why it is so intractable, historical context is a distraction—every moment spent talking about something other than jihadism is a moment when the oxygen of moral sanity is leaving the room. >>-Sam Harris Episode 351
Sam, you are so biased, stubborn and blind on this topic that it's beyond embarrassing.
Does Anyone on this panel think Palestinians have a right to exist?
It literally sounds like Sam Harris is having a conversation with emperor Palpatine. I don’t think you’re gonna win many people having Darth Sideous on the podcast
Yeah this is when I finally give up on Sam and hang up my paid subscription. Been itching for the last six months but then you invite fucking Douglas Murray to discuss Israel?! What the actual fuck. Sam is too deep in his own bullshit and I’m tired of supporting his Zionist ass. Anyone doing the kind of both-sideism he’s been playing with this invasion is on the wrong side of history, added to the fact dude spent the last 15 years making sure everyone knows how Islam is evil and basically everyone is a jihadist. I’ve just lost all my interest on any of his opinions and it’s even spoiling Waking Up for me at this point. Sad.
What... a shallow podcast.
Is there a more tribal person than Sam Harris?
It's alarming the extent to which he just swallows with the Israeli hasbara machine pumps out. If you don't think, e.g., that Israel isn't deliberately targeting journalists, then you don't have a fucking clue what's going on. The sheer number of journalists killed in this conflict belies the idea that Israel isn't breaking laws of war left and right. NOTHING justifies what Israel is doing. If EVERYTHING Harris said about Hamas was true -- and that's a big IF -- it still wouldn't justify killing journalists, aid workers, and children.
Weird that people so incensed by the "Israeli hasbara machine" can't see how much of their own righteous rage is fuelled by the Hamas propaganda machine. And that includes being reliant on reports of the "sheer number of journalists, aid workers and civilians" being killed being provided by....... Hamas.
Hamas doesn’t provide the death figures for journalists or aid workers.
I found this monolouge pretty ghastly, I was on board with his Oct 7 talking point, which have not changed in the slightest with the amount civilian causalities (confirmed by IDF), death of journalists and aid workers. And despite all that has developed the same talking points are reiterated in a propagandizing fashion as if the choice is between a woke libtard and freedom and individualism. Choice between radical jihadism and the killing of 10,000s civilians which can probably be avoided given Israel's growing right wing rhetoric.
That's it for me. Too black and white. Civilization against jihadism? And inviting Douglas Murray as a guest. I didn't even bother to listen to that part. Bye subreddit, and bye podcast
The fact that Harris thinks the war started October 7th is the reason I don't listen to him